A Muslim inheritance rights case has raised a larger constitutional question: where should India draw the line between judicial review, religious freedom and legislative reform?
Petitions challenging the 1937 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act for allegedly discriminating against women in matters of inheritance may not receive a swift hearing. The Supreme Court indicated on Wednesday that the outcome could depend heavily on a separate, long-pending verdict from a nine-judge Constitution Bench examining the Sabarimala temple entry case.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was hearing petitions that argue the 1937 Act discriminates against Muslim women by giving them smaller shares of inheritance than men and prescribing unequal rules relating to testamentary succession. The petitioners contend that these provisions violate constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
During the hearing, the Bench observed that the two matters were closely connected. Both cases ultimately raise a fundamental question: how far can courts go in examining personal law and religious customs without entering an area that is primarily reserved for Parliament?
The Sabarimala reference, the court noted, could help settle whether judicial review can extend to religious and customary practices, or whether such reforms should largely be left to the legislature under its powers, including those set out in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Article 25(2)(b) allows the state to make laws providing for the opening of Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus and to enact laws for social welfare and reform, even when such measures affect religious practices.
Since the inheritance challenge raises a parallel question about legislative and judicial authority over Muslim personal law, the court indicated that the findings of the nine-judge Bench could have a direct bearing on the case.
Why the Sabarimala Verdict Matters
The Sabarimala reference has a long constitutional history. It followed the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment, delivered by a five-judge Bench, which struck down the traditional restriction preventing women of menstruating age from entering the Sree Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
The ruling triggered a series of review petitions. In 2019, instead of deciding those petitions directly, the Supreme Court referred a broader set of constitutional questions to a larger Bench.
The reference expanded beyond the Sabarimala dispute. It included questions concerning restrictions on Muslim women entering mosques and dargahs, the practice of female genital cutting among the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the rights of Parsi women who marry outside their community to enter fire temples.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench concluded 16 days of hearings in May and reserved its judgment. The verdict is still awaited.
Parliament or Judiciary?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the inheritance matter raises a similar and broader constitutional question: should Parliament reform such laws through legislation, or can the judiciary intervene through its writ jurisdiction?
The Bench agreed that this was a central issue. It indicated that the answer could be influenced by whatever the nine-judge Bench ultimately rules on the limits of judicial power over religion, personal law and customary practices.
The court also raised a separate concern about the scope of the present petitions. It observed that the challenge, as currently framed, appeared to seek a "large and expansive" reworking of Muslim personal law and inheritance customs, potentially going beyond the narrower questions the petitioners may have initially intended to raise.
The Bench suggested that the petitioners reconsider and possibly narrow their claims. It asked them to file a fresh response within a week clarifying the precise relief they are seeking.
Case Likely to Await Constitutional Clarity
Given the overlapping constitutional questions, the Bench indicated that it would prefer to await the Sabarimala verdict before substantially proceeding with the inheritance case.
The matter has been listed after a week, when the petitioners are expected to present refined arguments and clarify the scope of their challenge.
The case is being closely watched because a ruling could have wider implications for the extent to which courts can review religious personal laws in India. It also touches on a recurring constitutional debate over the balance between religious freedom, gender equality, personal law reform and Parliament's role in shaping civil law.
The questions before the court could therefore extend well beyond inheritance. They may help define the constitutional boundary between judicial review and legislative reform when questions of religion, custom and personal law intersect with fundamental rights.
Petitions challenging the 1937 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act for allegedly discriminating against women in matters of inheritance may not receive a swift hearing. The Supreme Court indicated on Wednesday that the outcome could depend heavily on a separate, long-pending verdict from a nine-judge Constitution Bench examining the Sabarimala temple entry case.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was hearing petitions that argue the 1937 Act discriminates against Muslim women by giving them smaller shares of inheritance than men and prescribing unequal rules relating to testamentary succession. The petitioners contend that these provisions violate constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
During the hearing, the Bench observed that the two matters were closely connected. Both cases ultimately raise a fundamental question: how far can courts go in examining personal law and religious customs without entering an area that is primarily reserved for Parliament?
The Sabarimala reference, the court noted, could help settle whether judicial review can extend to religious and customary practices, or whether such reforms should largely be left to the legislature under its powers, including those set out in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Article 25(2)(b) allows the state to make laws providing for the opening of Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus and to enact laws for social welfare and reform, even when such measures affect religious practices.
Since the inheritance challenge raises a parallel question about legislative and judicial authority over Muslim personal law, the court indicated that the findings of the nine-judge Bench could have a direct bearing on the case.
Why the Sabarimala Verdict Matters
The Sabarimala reference has a long constitutional history. It followed the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment, delivered by a five-judge Bench, which struck down the traditional restriction preventing women of menstruating age from entering the Sree Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
The ruling triggered a series of review petitions. In 2019, instead of deciding those petitions directly, the Supreme Court referred a broader set of constitutional questions to a larger Bench.
The reference expanded beyond the Sabarimala dispute. It included questions concerning restrictions on Muslim women entering mosques and dargahs, the practice of female genital cutting among the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the rights of Parsi women who marry outside their community to enter fire temples.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench concluded 16 days of hearings in May and reserved its judgment. The verdict is still awaited.
Parliament or Judiciary?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the inheritance matter raises a similar and broader constitutional question: should Parliament reform such laws through legislation, or can the judiciary intervene through its writ jurisdiction?
The Bench agreed that this was a central issue. It indicated that the answer could be influenced by whatever the nine-judge Bench ultimately rules on the limits of judicial power over religion, personal law and customary practices.
The court also raised a separate concern about the scope of the present petitions. It observed that the challenge, as currently framed, appeared to seek a "large and expansive" reworking of Muslim personal law and inheritance customs, potentially going beyond the narrower questions the petitioners may have initially intended to raise.
The Bench suggested that the petitioners reconsider and possibly narrow their claims. It asked them to file a fresh response within a week clarifying the precise relief they are seeking.
Case Likely to Await Constitutional Clarity
Given the overlapping constitutional questions, the Bench indicated that it would prefer to await the Sabarimala verdict before substantially proceeding with the inheritance case.
The matter has been listed after a week, when the petitioners are expected to present refined arguments and clarify the scope of their challenge.
The case is being closely watched because a ruling could have wider implications for the extent to which courts can review religious personal laws in India. It also touches on a recurring constitutional debate over the balance between religious freedom, gender equality, personal law reform and Parliament's role in shaping civil law.
The questions before the court could therefore extend well beyond inheritance. They may help define the constitutional boundary between judicial review and legislative reform when questions of religion, custom and personal law intersect with fundamental rights.
Leave a Comment